Government is inherently a limitation on the people submitting to it; how much of a limitation is determined by how much Government is tolerated by those governed/limited. It would be nice to live somewhere that could remain at peace when it's people governed themselves by their consciences, but that doesn't seem to last in situations with very many people, historically speaking. In a way, it is sad that our species was strong enough and determined enough to overcome the natural forces that kept our population numbers low enough to limit the level of government required to keep us from abusing each other's freedoms.

Oh well, i guess we can quietly hope for a SHTF scenario that will reduce the human population without devastating the Earth's natural resources.

well said Gello. Reality is reality. Pure liberty requires that a society police itself (fairly) so that it does not need government intervention. The more complacent people get, the more the government will step in to fill the void.

No, actually the Supreme Court conferred that honor to itself in Marbury v. Madison way back when. The Constitution acknowledges the SCOTUS does have the power to declare something constitutional or unconstitutional, but not that it is the sole arbiter of such judgments.

We have a winner.

Here is where we clearly can see eye to eye.And were not alone,Thomas Jefferson and James Madison are with us.

"........that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party (Each state) has an equal right to judge for itself........"-Thomas Jefferson,Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

"The powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact(the Constitution of The United States), to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact(the Constitution)."-James Madison,Virginia Resolutions

"You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."-Thomas Jefferson,1820

"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Monsieur A. Coray, Oct 31, 1823

"Refusing or not refusing to execute a law to stamp it with its final character... makes the Judiciary department paramount in fact to the Legislature, which was never intended and can never be proper." — James Madison, letter to John Brown, October 1788

"Judicial review" is NOT a constitutionally enumerated or granted power,it is a usurpation.

Marbury v. Madison,like Wickard v. Filburn,is bull****.

I'd like to address the idea that government should be able to violate the inalienable rights of Americans to preemptively "protect" other people from their rights being violated.

I'm sorry,but this is nonsense.

Government was not instituted in this nation to enact "laws" that "protect" people from the theoretical possible future abuse of their rights from others.

This isn't "Minority Report" with Tom Cruise.

Government is only legitimate when it acts to deal with the ACTUAL abuses of rights of one party by another.
NOT when,driven by the insipid fears of a majority about some possible harm that may befall them,it acts as a mystical prognosticator and makes "laws" intended to head off what the majority fears.

This supposes that the government was granted pretty much arbitrary power to decide for the people the extent of their natural,inalienable rights,"for their own good"(FOOG),of course.

If this were so,then government might as well have been framed without the clear instructions of its powers and limitations as we see in the Constitution- it might as well have been chartered to have any and all power and authority it needs to that end.

This is simply NOT the case.

I'll allow Jefferson to elaborate further:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -Thomas Jefferson

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others." -Thomas Jefferson

Taking liberty from people by establishing a permission slip system to regulate the exercise of such liberty,because of what people *might* do is arbitrary assertion of authority not granted to ANY level of government in this nation and is patently offensive to the First Principles of our founding.

"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it."-George Washington

"There are certain vital principles in our free Republican governments, which will determine and over-rule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power. . . . An ACT of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority."-Justice Samuel Chase,1798

To put this simply-

Your rights end only where the next persons rights begin.

NOT WHERE GOVERNMENT ARBITRARILY --AND ILLEGITIMATELY-- DRAWS SOME ARTIFICIAL LINE.

Should someone violate the rights of someone else,THEN----AND ONLY THEN---- government is proper in acting to rectify the situation.

The governments that make up this nation do not have the lawful authority to arbitrary limit the excersize of our rights.

And when it does so (say it with me kids):

"......that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force....."-Thomas Jefferson,Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

__________________"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."-Mahatma Gandhi

Pure liberty requires that a society police itself (fairly) so that it does not need government intervention. The more complacent people get, the more the government will step in to fill the void.

Perfectly said!

Corollary: The nature of government is to always try to expand in size and scope. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the people - the electorate - to see to it that does not happen. The role of a just government is only to guard the rights of the individual and nothing more.

The USA is the Biggest Corporation in the world yet we hire imbeciles to run it into the ground. We elect these turds to serve the people and instead they write laws that limit our rights and mandate compliance with sublaws that only need the approval of the current SCOTUS!

Thats the biggest issue, how many friggen laws can a society have before ignorance of the law is the only reasonable response to recreating our lives by The Government for the Government?

Time to get back to the basics, I know its hard to imagine they might be under served in such a gargantuan Government as we have but here we go. Defend the Constitution, Protect and defend the border, balance a reasonable operating budget, Ensure unfettered commerce can thrive, prosecute those who restrict the Constitutional rights of others, Help the truly poor and desperate and stay the f4ck out of my bedroom, My Gun Cabinet, My free Space and my right to tell you to go s4it in a hat if I feel so inclined. The next law added to the books should contain at least three laws to be removed from the books permanently! Continue doing this till were back to a stack of paper my 7 year old granddaughter could carry in her binder (and understand)!

Back to the topic, Yes not only is the 2A our permit the entire Constitution supports that right.

Why do I have to have a state issued permit for something that is confirmed (not given) by the constitution?

Looking at the debate over the 2nd amendment and at the discussion at the Constitutional Convention, I have to say the second was pretty clear about owning and carrying ones own personal arms. That said, after the Constitution was ratified and implemented, the next flurry of firearms activity was in the states which very carefully split carrying weapons (legal and protected) from carrying weapons concealed, which was often prohibited.

I can find no discussion from the period in which anyone who wrote the 2nd or voted for it advised it included the practice of concealment.

IMHO, we have a broad right to own and carry openly rifles, shotguns, edged weapons and handguns BUT we have no right to do so concealed.

I am a long time CC permit holder and carry every day.

__________________

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense."

IMHO, we have a broad right to own and carry openly rifles, shotguns, edged weapons and handguns BUT we have no right to do so concealed.

Do you think anyone who wrote or signed our Constitution believed we could possibly stand up against a government out of control with weapons at sling arms? No way, thats just ridiculous! They knew the only way to beat the Brits was to crawl, hide and ambush. They didnt march rank and file down the center of the road with a drum cadence. Why do you think they would have supported a law that requires we expose our strengths and weaknesses to the rest of the world?

The only way you can conclude that is if you write into the Constitution words that do not exist. Thats both unwise and unwarranted. The act of concealing anything is not against the law, its what you do with that which you conceal that could be suspect and punishable. Are you really saying that we have no right to hide anything that has the possibility of causing harm to someone?

Seriously, is someone with a terminal communicable venereal disease CCWing a or just moving it from one place to another? Until they use it in a manner that is against the law, its really not criminal! Unless your a mind-reader, limiting access because of possibilities is highly subjective without some serious proof of criminal intent.

Our legal system has moved past prosecuting bad things that did happen to banning the way bad things could happen. Thats a can of worms we cannot untangle and should not be asked to do. If you CCW, you realize that the only reason you can in this country is due to the 2A, its not intended to be parsed out by Republi-crats.

Do you think anyone who wrote or signed our Constitution believed we could possibly stand up against a government out of control with weapons at sling arms?

Also hard to stand up to the government with a snubbie in ones pocket. Actually, that is a strawman argument as I did not make that argument. Read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. Read Madisons notes on the Constitutional Convention and then cite me the bits that discuss concealed carry.

I simply believe the founders were pretty clear in their meaning. If they intended a right to carry weapons concealed they would have at least discussed it.

That does not make such carry illegal or imply it should be. It simply means that the practice is not contained in the 2nd.

Quote:

No way, thats just ridiculous! They knew the only way to beat the Brits was to crawl, hide and ambush. They didnt march rank and file down the center of the road with a drum cadence. Why do you think they would have supported a law that requires we expose our strengths and weaknesses to the rest of the world?

Actually, that is not accurate. While sniping from the brush did happen and was a major part of the war, the battles that counted, Saratoga, Gilford Courthouse, Yorktown were noted by our Continentals, the professional army, fighting exactly as did the British, fighting at least to a tie. The battles where we took and held territory were marked by traditional European style battles that we won or tied.

Quote:

The only way you can conclude that is if you write into the Constitution words that do not exist. Thats both unwise and unwarranted. The act of concealing anything is not against the law, its what you do with that which you conceal that could be suspect and punishable. Are you really saying that we have no right to hide anything that has the possibility of causing harm to someone?

"The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1808. ME 12:59

__________________

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense."